Cultural Contexts in an Election Year
Shapiro, "Policies Without Meaning"


This was an interesting read and brought up many issues from an administration that I knew little about.  Overall I found that while the Clinton administration brought a few new, positive changes, it was more or less a continuation of negative policies towards teaching and learning.  One of the positive changes that was made was a shift in resources for Early Childhood and various Head Start Programs.  This was great to read since it has been lacking across the board for some time.  There was also a recognition of the inequalities that take place in the public schools for programs and resources.  While it is nice for there to be recognition, the larger question is what will be done about it?   There was also a claim that encouragement was placed on the local level to be  more flexible.  I found this interesting that the people with the power expected those with little power to be flexible when they aren't able to call any of the shots.  There were also new college loan initiatives.  At first I thought this was a good thing, but as I continued reading I realized that these students would be trained for their roles in society outside of what their true talents and calling may be. 

Shapiro has many key arguments in this article that generally relate to one another.  One is that the "attempt to redefine the value of education primarily in vocationally related terms is misguided".  I believe that he is claiming redefining education for students to go out into the work force is another way of further corrupting the educational system.  There was a focus, during this administration, to prepare future generations to be globally competitive.  This, in my opinion, will set Americans further and further apart away from a common goal.  The whole idea of training students to go out and become part of a Corporate system just seems wrong.  As educators, the goal has always been to train students for the greater good of society, for citizens that can co-exist in a Democratic way.  Making education "global" and competitive goes against the original values of education.  Another argument is in relation to performance standards.  The article that I chose to compare/contrast to Shapiro goes into detail of Mitt Romney's opinion on performance standards.  Romney is a big supporter of performance standards and standardized testing in schools and claims they make education better.  I believe Shapiro would enthusiastically disagree with Romney.   Shapiro claims that performance standards emphasize the "uncritical, uncreative character of public education".  In my opinion, these performance standards and the NCLB act have done precisely what they claim to protect students from.  Children are being left behind and have been for some time now. 

After I read Matthew Tabor's article titled "Mitt Romney's Views on Education" I felt agitated.  I couldn't believe that a man that is suppose to be educated so well can be so narrow- minded when it comes to the core values of our country.  Romney promises, that if elected, he will catalog all the schools to see which students and teachers are working and which are not.  The insinuation that education is in such a poor state due to students and teachers not working seems ludicrous.  Clearly, this gentleman would benefit from seeing the whole puzzle and not isolated pieces of it.  It is like Shapiro addressed the Clinton administration, "This is time for you and those in your administration to widen the focus of your educational lenses." I believe Shapiro would claim the lack of creativity and student experiences in the classroom mixed with performance standards are some of the main underlying issues in our schools.  Romney also points out that he helped start a program where parents must go to parental education classes in poor performing schools.  While I think parental involvement is a wonderful thing, he went about it the wrong way.  It seems to be an in your face approach putting the bulk of the blame on the parents. 

It is now clear to me that education is political.  It is sad that those that have the power misuse it.  I wish that somehow as a society we could rise above all of it and make positive changes for future generations.  The correlation between depressed students and uncreative schooling is shocking but after reading these articles makes more sense as to how it has become such a sad situation for our youngsters.  The link below is a video of Mitt Romney.  It echoes some of what I discussed in my blog as well as other topics.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8gNLgQrwy0

Empowering vs. Domesticating

Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum
Patrick J. Finn - Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working- Class Children in Their Own Self- Interest   

Argument:
Finn claims society offers, in their own belief, an equal literacy program throughout all public educational institutions.  Finn very much disagrees with this idea and counteracts with his opinion that in fact the different approaches to learning are split into two systems.  The first system is empowering education, which is directed to the upper-class.  This enables a student to be creative and a problem-solver.  The second system is domesticating education.  This sounded like something in the animal world to me and gave me a negative feeling just reading it.  As I went on, it was discovered domesticating is based on no creativity, fact-based learning.  I believe it was what Bartolome was referring to when she was discussing "dehumanization". My interpretation of these is that empowering education provides a student with knowledge on how to run a factory while domesticating education teaches a student how to work in a factory.  It just seems very unfair and judgemental.  I don't think Finn believes it is an evil conspiracy but rather something that has been adapted to over time.  People automatically take their place in the world.  It goes back to what we have discussed in class where the ones without power notice the inequality.  It is so easy for an upper-class student to yell about the all inequalities, but most of the time after, he/she just goes on with their lives again.  Finn claims that if a working-class student received empowering education it would be "literacy with an attitude".  The fear from those in power is that these students will realize the injustices that are taking place and will perhaps act on it.  This reminded me of the lack of literacy for slaves so that the slaves would not rebel against the "owners".  Finn believes there could be non-violent social change.  I agree with this completely.  Teachers will be the allies to these students during their fight for equality.  Educators will provide these students with potent weapons" in their struggle for a better deal.  I was reminded of Delpit while reading about these potent weapons.  I believe she also wants teachers to form an alliance with students.  As a teacher and Graduate student, it was powerful reading the perspectives of others "in my boat".  Often times we judge how well something works by how well it worked for us individually in the classroom. I know now that I have to break out of this cookie-cutter, one size fits all mentality. 


Quote#1:

"The status quo is the status quo because people who have the power to make changes are comfortable with the way things are"

Those in power have the capacity to change what they would like to change.  So that brings me to the conclusion that all that is happening now is for the self-preservation of the "elite".  It is scary and sad that there is this hierarchy presented in society that must somehow be broken  from the top down.  If we are such a "Democratic" nation, how has this been allowed to carry on?  What do we truly value as a society? I thought we valued equality but it is apparent those with the power to change take that ability away from those willing to do so. 

Quote #2:

"Creativity and personal development were important goals for the students at the affluent schools"

While I think this is a wonderful thing, it presents a problem when all students aren't given these opportunities.  It reminds me of a student I had four years back.  He was very bright and artisitic.  This young man was from a "lower- class", urban backgound.  His parents moved from the Dominican Republic when he was a toddler.  His test scores would have shown otherwise to his intelligence but as an eduactor I looked past that.  He had the smashing good looks all the girls adored.  He was quite charismatic for a young man.  The most interesting thing though was how he dealt with his problems.  Every morning I gave my students a journal prompt and they had the choice between the prompt or free write.  Atleast twice a week, he would draw a cartoon.  These cartoons were based on whatever he was dealing with in his private life and I felt blessed that he shared these with me.  Throughout the two years I taught him, I tried to modify the lessons so that his gift would be recognized.  Thinking back he didn't really do the assigment the way I asked.  I  have realized it doesn't matter that he didn't do what I asked.  He did the assigment better. 

 
Quote #3
"This would make literacy dangerous again."

The above quote is from Finn's perspective on what would happen if the lower to middle -class students had a political investment for learning literacy.  Finn discusses what would happen if the teachers really did form an alliance with these students for proper equality.  To the status quo, this would be very dangerous.  They may lose the power that they claim to be their own through innuendos and inequality throughout curriculum.  It would perhaps be a truly free nation.  Free from injustice and inequality. 


Hyperlink:
I found a review for Patrick Finn's "Literacy with an Attitude".  I agree with the reviewer that it is outstanding in the sense of its straightforwardness.  I plan on reading the full text this semester. 

http://wwu.academia.edu/RosalieRomano/Teaching/27429/Review_of_Patrick_Finns_Literacy_with_an_Attitude_2e

A Story I Always Liked and Wanted to Share

What do teachers make? 
"The dinner guests were sitting around a table discussing life. One man a CEO decided to explain what's wrong with education. His opinion was that how can a kid learn anything from someone that decided to be a teacher as a career. He said the following quote to his guests, "Those who can do, those who can't teach". He said to a guest, "Ned you're a teacher, what do you make?". Ned who had a reputation for honesty replied, "you want to know what I make? I make kids work harder than they thought they ever could. I make a c plus feel like a Congressional Medal of Honor. I make kids sit through a forty minute class when their parents can't make them sit for five without an Ipod. I make them question. I make them apologize and mean it. I make them have respect and take responsibility for their own actions. I teach them to write then I make them write. I make my classroom a place where all kids feel safe. I make my students stand and place a hand over their heart and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I make them understand that if they use the gifts they were given, work hard, and follow their hearts they can succeed in life. Then, when people try to judge me by what I make, I can hold my head up high and pay no attention. You want to know what I make? I make a difference.

One Step Closer- Blog Post #3

More Than Lesson Plans:  Bartolome, "Beyond the Methods Fetish"

Argument and Beyond: Bartolome argues that today's methods are not a realistic approach to teaching children from different cultural backgrounds.  She backs this argument up with a lot of evidence and alternative processes to teaching and learning.  This author also claims that much of our methods we use have a blanket effect as to whom is truly in power and the various tactics used to ensure this will remain as it always has been.  Bartolome urges teachers to fight the power quite literally and take control back of our classrooms and do what is right.  I think that as educators we all want to do what is right.  Delpit provides us with evidence from research that we can use for the "change" while Johnson made an attempt to do so.  For the first time during these readings, I started to read the "hows".  This author provided us concrete practices that can be implemented in the classroom that have been proven to work.  I find it both absurd and reassuring that these articles were written twenty years ago and are finally starting to be used in the classroom.  One of the methods they discuss is cooperative learning.  I used cooperative learning at least three times per week with a heterogeneous setting.  This truly seemed to work because I often saw my "underachieving" students take leadership roles and in essence teach the others in the group.  I wanted so badly to go over in front of the groups and give these students a high-five, but I waited until after class.  I learned as much from this as they did.  I don't know when we as teachers started to think our practices are automatically the best practices and I think Bartolome echoes throughout the article that we must continue our quest for learning as this directly correlates to our teaching.  It is like that saying goes, "learning is talking teaching is listening".  We need to listen to our students and listen to those that know how to reach these learners.  Perhaps we do have to fight the power after all. 

Quote #1:

"The usually assume that 1) they as teachers are fine and do not need to identify, interrogate, and change their biased beliefs and fragmented views about subordinated students. 2) Schools, as institutions, are basically fair and democratic sites where all students are provided with similar if not equal treatment and learning conditions 3) children who experience academic difficulties ( especially those from culturally and linguistically low-status groups) require some form of "special" instruction since they obviously have not been able to succeed under "regular" or "normal" instructional conditions."(pg. 174) 

I was one of these teachers my first few months of teaching.  This was until I had a 25% percent Latino demographic in my classroom.  I had to find a way to teach these learners.  Some of them were newly English speaking learners while others were bilingual their whole lives.  The responsibility would surely be on me as administration said to be myself and love the kids like I had been.  While it's important to care for and respect your students it isn't enough.  These children had the right to a safe and secure learning environment which would bring them to their greatest potential, but how? It was  a combination of cooperative learning, author chair ( they choose the format of writing based on a theme with the first drafts being graphic organizers and then get to "tell" their story the way they choose), and many other things that I tried.  Some strategies were very successful while others were not.  There was a lot of reflection happening and I had to admit to myself that I need to change the way I teach to meet these learners.  It is not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.  I can't stand the word normal so I have an issue with that.  It is all about perspective in my opinion.  Who are we to say what it regular or normal? 

Quote #2:

"Teachers working on improving their political clarity recognize that teaching is not a politically neutral undertaking." (pg. 178)

When I read Johnson, I started to pick up on these political foundations in the educational institutions.  Delpit certainly confirmed this for me with her "culture of power".  To be frank, it just isn't fair.  This goes against everything in our hearts as educators.  We are suppose to teach children, ALL children.  But how when the stakes are against them and the people in charge set up a system that will ensure that these students remain where they are.  As teachers we will have to take over our own classrooms for these students.  Is there any other way but to be a rebel?

Quote #3:

"More recent research offers alternative models that shift the source of school failure away from the characteristics of the individual child, their families, and their cultures, and toward the schooling process". (pg. 181)

There is much to be said about such a small quote.  First, I am glad that research has been done in this context although it was twenty years ago.  I can only hope there is research being conducted now by the people in power so that actual changes will occur.  It isn't fair to blame families for what has happened.  Every single one of us has heritage and culture and it is our right to maintain that.  This should be viewed as a positive thing, not a reason to blame.  So perhaps it is our views as a society that must change first.  The "culture of power" is what needs to change.  All of us should be given the same fighting chance.  It is so close-minded to think otherwise.  I know that all teachers including myself have much more learning to do in these matters. 



The link below was entertaining to me for the simple fact that I didn't know there was a male privilege feed on Twitter.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/white-male-privilege-twitter_n_1884502.html


I found the link below useful in regards to various lessons that have been implemented in the classroom.

http://www.tolerance.org/activities

 

 

I

 

 

 

 

I am consistently confronted at the

beginning of each semester by students who are anxious to learn the latest teaching

methods

— methods that they hope will somehow magically work on minority

students.3 Although my students are well-intentioned individuals who sincerely

wish to create positive learning environments for culturally and

linguistically subordinated students, they arrive with the expectation that I will

provide them with easy answers in the form of specific instructional methods.

Everything Isn't Always What it Seems- Week 2 - Delpit

Lisa Delpit "The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children"

Argument:

Lisa Delpit's general argument is that White teachers educating Black children isn't quite working out for the Black students.  I think her argument is that White teachers often times don't want to listen to the idea that their methodologies are not benefiting the black learners.  They may "hear" it when someone proposes the idea but don't actually listen.  Therefore if they don't want to listen that their system is not beneficial to all they won't have to change their flawed system.  There are so many smaller ideas under her main argument but one I found interesting is the idea that we all want the same conclusion.  As educators of any race, the main goal is to make these students well-rounded citizens that can go out and maintain a profession geared to each unique individual.  If as educators we all have this goal then why can't these two sides come together?  I wish that Delpit's five rules for the culture of power was a mandatory read for all those involved in education from the curriculum writers to the faculty and staff of all schools.  Perhaps then this would shed some light as to what is really happening in our education system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/black-teachers-may-not-be_n_1587896.html

I found the link above to be interesting because it contradicts what I have read so far in both Delpit's and Johnson's articles.  In essence, the article claims there is a larger gap in black and white students on campuses with more Black professors.  The articles claims that hiring Black and Hispanic teachers to relate better to their student counterparts goes against equality.  I am against this statement very passionately.  There are things that must happen before we can even approach that statement.  Now this isn't to say I think all Whites belong in a "White" group and all Hispanics belong in the "Hispanic" group.  I think there has to be a place in the middle.

Quote #1:
This is from a Black woman principal in a Doctoral program that resides on the West Coast:
"If you try to suggest that that's not the way it is, they get defensive, then you get defensive, then they''ll start reciting research."

Even in this short quote there is a lot to be said.  First, there is the idea that there are two groups in this quote.  The two "they's".  It goes back to Johnson when he quotes the very famous King saying "can't we all just get along".  She divides White educators into one group and Black educators into another group.  Now while I may have had an issue with this ten years ago, I am not so naive to think this is wrong now.  These two groups that are trying to work towards the same goals are getting defensive.  It is not possible for these two groups to come together for the benefit of Black students when there is a contest going on.  It should be a meeting of the minds not a war for whom is correct.  Secondly, there is this idea that research is one size fits all.  It just doesn't make sense! Perhaps instead of all this research we should be focusing on actual experiences of what goes on in the classroom.  Lastly, there is this idea that we are getting defensive and it is causing a wider gap.  I think this goes back to Johnson when he claims we don't have to love or even like each other.  We simply must value each other's experiences and views so that we may work with one another.

Quote #2:
"The rules for the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those that have the power"

This is a valuable quote because it's saying those that have the power get to make the rules that we all must live by.  If someone has the power they can say what they want and don't necessarily have to value anyone else.  If the same people stay in power we will never have the ability to change.  Delpit claims we must start from the top and this is directly linked to just whom is at the top.  We must somehow get diversity and those that value all cultures in this culture of power.  But how?  If the rules of the culture of power are made to keep those that they benefit in power how will things ever be different?  For the first time in my life I am giving some serious thought to these issues and getting mad in the process.

Quote#3:
This was a quote a Native Alaskan teacher discussed in her English class.  The class was discussing how come people judge others based on the kind of "English" they use.

"We listen to the way people talk, not to judge them, but to tell what part of the river they come from.  These other people are not like that.  They think everybody needs to talk like them.  Unlike us, they have a hard time hearing what people say if they don't talk exactly like them.  Their way of talking is called Formal English.  We have to feel a little sorry for them because they only have one way to talk".

This quote is very meaningful when discussing appreciating other's differences.  In our country, there are many ways to speak English.  I don't know why some would view this as a negative thing.  Is one way to speak more "American" than another?  Is this why there are negative connotations with the dialects and accents from different regions of our country?  The person that said this simply listens to accents/dialects to know where someone is from with no judgement.  I think that is commendable in a world with so much bias and discrimination.  This is where we should all be in a "civilized" society.  So then that question comes up.  Are we as civilized as we think we are? And by we I mean White, middle-classed people.

In response to the article by Allan G. Johnson "Privilege, Power and Difference"

     The first thing I noticed when reading this article were how many a-ha moments there were.  I knew about most of these issues going in but didn't realize everything that goes along with them.  There are so many things happening in our society currently pertaining to who has the upper hand and why.  This article enlightened me as to the "why's".
     I enjoyed reading how the author practices what he preaches, as he is a sociologist who designs and teaches courses based on  issues in privilege and differences within our society.  From his tone in writing, I gather he has spent much time in his life thinking about these issues although he claims to be from a privileged background being a heterosexual male.  This was something he managed to write a few times within the article.  Each time he stated why he is privileged I thought how ludicrous it sounded that people would be judged on what ethnicity, gender,  or sexual orientation they are and not for who they are as a unique individual.  
      The beginning of  Chapter one was very engaging and brought me into the article as a reader ready to be enlightened.  He describes the Rodney King incident and quotes the often times parodied phrase "can't we all  just get along".  It seems like a reasonable quote in which many people could get behind.  I respect Johnson for blatantly writing that at this point in society the answer to that question is no.  There is too much that has to be changed in our way of thinking for such a thing to take place.  I think I enjoyed this article so much because that is the underlying tone of this article, that much has to change.
      Another area of this article I found to be useful in thinking about privileges and differences is how the author is against sugar coating that the media and other institutions finds acceptable.  It seems so simple to most of us if we can't talk about what is really going on how will we ever move forward and change things.  If people think things, shouldn't they be able to say them, this is a free country right? We have to acknowledge the pink elephant in the room in order to do anything about it.  Johnson says it well when he claims, "if we can't talk about it we can't do anything about it".
      Johnson brings up an interesting point when he claims we don't have to love or even like each other.  I think that as humans we should tolerate each other but it has to go beyond that, we must respect and learn from each other's "differences".  If Johnson is right and we are innately social beings, then with all this hostility and hatred of things that are different from ourselves are we working against a basic principle that is biological.  I have never seen a young child at a playground shun another child for looking different.  So it must be learned right? I have heard some people say children are not prejudice because their brains aren't fully developed and these traits develop later in life.  As there is no set scientific proof for that statement, I am not buying it.
     There is quite a bit of text dedicated to gender inequality.  There is quite a double standard in our society that has become the rule book for common practices in the home, workplace, and how society views things in general.  Johnson referred to this as "conferred dominance".  Calling someone a mama's boy is an insult while calling another daddy's princess has no negative undertone in meaning.  There should be equal meaning in both statements, not a negative for one and a neutral meaning for the other.
      The bullet list at the bottom of the article summarizes many things he discusses in the main article while adding new ones.  The author describes privilege, power and difference within the realm of gender, ethnicity, social class and sexual orientation.  It's as if he states the issues we have as a way to say this is what is wrong and this is what we need to change.  All of us.  Whether you are the one in privilege or the one being denied it, this affects all of us.  Perhaps instead of the focus being what we have in differences, maybe we as humans should find all we have in common.
   
   

   

Introduction

I know the first post should be an introduction to who I am so here goes:

Who are you? Rachel Smith (formerly Packer- still kind of a newlywed :) )\
Where do you teach? I was currently laid off in a mass layoff with about 8 teachers at St. Rocco School.  I worked as the Middle School Math Teacher for two tears.  Before St Rocco School, I worked at St. Matthew School for three years as their Literature/ Math Middle School Teacher.
Why you decided to do a  masters in ASTL? Professional Development/ Certification
What do you do in your spare time? I love spending time with my family! I have a wonderful daughter and husband and we stay busy! We go on short trips often and love to visit the local festivals, museums and fairs.  I also love live music and various concert venues.  My family and I also love playing sports together and staying active. I also like trying new restaurants.